Unified Patents, Inc.
`SAP America Inc.
`v.
`Clouding Corp.
`
`IPR2013-00586
`IPR2014-00306
`U.S. Patent 6,738,799
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`1
`
`
`SAP America Inc.
`v.
`Clouding Corp.
`
`IPR2013-00586
`IPR2014-00306
`U.S. Patent 6,738,799
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 6,738,799
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 6,738,799
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`3
`
`
`
`Scientific Principles Underlying the
`‘799 Patent
`
`Regarding the chunks of data from the earlier version of the file that are to be retained and
`discarded, one possibility would be for the delta/update file to explicitly indicate for each
`chunk in the earlier version of the file whether it should be retained or discarded. In that
`case, the delta/update file would contain the following three commands: “insert” (for new
`segments, as discussed already), “copy” (i.e., retain a given chunk from the earlier file – e.g.,
`segments A1, A3, A5, and A6 in “901” in Fig. 9 of the ‘799 patent), and “delete” (i.e.,
`discard a given chunk from the earlier file - e.g., segments A2 and A4 in “901” in Fig. 9 of
`the ‘799 patent). However, one skilled in the art would quickly realize that a design with all
`three of these commands is overly pedantic (and inefficient) because it is not necessary to
`explicitly indicate both the chunks to retain and discard: explicitly specifying either one of
`these sets (i.e., all chunks to retain or all chunks to discard) will implicitly identify the other
`set. In other words, one can have either a retain-by-default policy where only the chunks to
`be discarded are specified (via a “delete” command) and all other chunks will be implicitly
`retained, or a discard-by-default policy where only the chunks to be retained must be
`specified (via a “copy” command) and all other chunks will be implicitly discarded.
`Hutchinson Decl. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 26.
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`4
`
`
`
`Scientific Principles Underlying the
`‘799 Patent
`
`When designing a system to generate an update file, a
`skilled artisan, as a matter of design choice, would have
`employed one of two basic design methodologies – either
`a discard-by-default process (with a “copy” command) or a
`retain-by-default process (with a “delete” command).
`
`Hutchinson Decl. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 22.
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`5
`
`
`
`Balcha – US Pat. 6,233,589
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`6
`
`
`
`Balcha – US Pat. 6,233,589
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`7
`
`
`
`Balcha – US Pat. 6,233,589
`
`Ex. 1003 at 4:48-56.
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`8
`
`
`
`Balcha – US Pat. 6,233,589
`
`Hutchinson Decl.
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ 35.
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`9
`
`
`
`Claim 37
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`10
`
`
`
`Balcha – US Pat. 6,233,589
`
`Ex. 1003 at 13:50-63.
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`11
`
`
`
`Balcha – US Pat. 6,233,589
`
`Ex. 1003 at 14:5-19.
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`12
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 12, 23 & 30
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`13
`
`
`
`Miller
`US Pat. 5,832,520
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`14
`
`
`
`Freivald – US Pat. 5,898,836
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`15
`
`
`
`Williams – US Pat. 5,990,810
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`16
`
`
`
`Patentability Over Williams
`
`Williams teaches the construction of incremental backup information of X
`that includes raw subblocks, which represents data not included in the
`previously saved version of X (i.e., Y) and references to subblocks that are
`included in Y. Absent from this incremental backup information is any
`command to copy (or it equivalent) a segment of Y into X as
`reconstructed at E2. Instead, all that is included in the incremental backup
`information is a reference to a segment of Y to be retained, by E2, when
`reconstructing X. However, neither this reference, nor the incremental
`backup information, includes any command, or instruction, to copy or
`duplicate the related segment of Y when reconstructing X at E2.
`Mohapatra Decl. Ex. 2009 at ¶ 28.
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`17
`
`
`
`Clouding Corp.
`Motion to Amend
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`18
`
`
`
`Proposed Claim 47
`
`47. A computer readable storage medium, comprising computer readable program
`code embodied on said computer readable storage medium, said computer readable
`program code for programming a first computer to provide updates for transmission
`to a second computer that permits the second computer to obtain most recent
`versions of files, the computer readable program code causing the first computer to
`perform the following steps: (a) determining whether the second computer has a latest
`version of a file, wherein said determining is performed by the first computer without
`interaction with the second computer by comparing representations of segments of
`the latest version of the file with representations of segments of an earlier version of
`the file in which ends of each of the segments of the earlier version of the file are
`defined by segment delimiters that are statistically determined to be optimal division
`points for the segments; (b) generating an update, if the second computer does not
`have a latest version of the file, wherein said generating is performed by the first
`computer without interaction with the second computer; and (c) transmitting the
`update from the first computer to the second computer.
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`19
`
`
`
`Harlan – US Pat. 6,076,084
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`20
`
`
`
`Harlan – US Pat. 6,076,084
`
`Ex. 1020 at 4:53-57.
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`21
`
`
`
`Patentability Over Williams
`Q. Does "most efficient" mean optimal, in
` your opinion?
`A. No.
`Q.
` What does "optimal" mean?
`A.
`In general, optimal for a system means
` that that's the -- that's the most – the
` state is achievable -- theoretically, you
` cannot beat that, talking in a general
` sense, not specific to this patent. In
` general, when you say something is
` optimal, that means you cannot have
` something better than that, given those
` constraints.
`
`Ex. 1019 at 48:21 – 49:8
`
`Unified Patents & SAP America v. Clouding
`IPR2013-‐00586 IPR2014-‐00306
`Clouding Exhibit 2013
`
`22
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
